Christopher Castillo Arrested After Threatening To Kill Obama On Facebook

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Christopher Castillo Arrested After Threatening To Kill Obama On Facebook

A Florida man was arrested this November after posting threatening messages about President Barack Obama on Facebook. When Secret Service agents came to question 28-year-old Christopher Castillo about his violent comments, The Smoking Gun reports that the situation quickly deteriorated.

On Nov. 1, Castillo wrote the following on Facebook, apparently in response to Obama's views on health care:
That’s the last straw, if he gets re-elected I’m going to hunt him down and kill him watch the life disappear from his eyes.
Threatening the U.S. president's life is never taken lightly. After a tip-off from a concerned citizen, Secret Service agents arrived at Castillo's Melbourne home on Nov. 8 to investigate his intentions behind the Facebook post.

My concern is that this will become common now. Obama has too much work left to do for this kind of shenanigans.

For every one nutcase that we catch, I worry that we miss three more.

We're gonna sit down and have ourselves a drink! And after we're done - after *I'm* done, you can run upstairs and take whichever one of them little pills makes you feel the best~Dolores Claiborne

I think that Obama is very much aware of the increased threat to him and his family with this election win.

What a shame to have so much hate in the country with a tradition of assassinating any president that pisses you off. It is so at odds with the spirit and premise of the United States.

It's been thirty years since anyone tried it, right? Reagan was the last president to take an assasin's bullet. I did notice that Obama tends to not speak publicly in that bulletproof box they built for him anymore.

Either they got better at protecting him or they are less worried. I hope they are acting accordingly.

I read that there are MANY execution threats, and a few found with guns, a guy that took a few shots at the white house...They seem to be catching them, but the intensity is different now. Just reading the things posted here in this forum.. people are losing their ability to reason.

Disturbing.

We're gonna sit down and have ourselves a drink! And after we're done - after *I'm* done, you can run upstairs and take whichever one of them little pills makes you feel the best~Dolores Claiborne

You are held accountable for the things you say online. Violent hatred towards someone is a vivid expression of mental instability.

Very true. On many other forums I belong to, any violent threat or suicide threat is usually flagged and reported to the local police. I hope the mods have a similar thing in place here. Even if it's a lol joke (a sick one at that and I love my dark humor), killing someone is not something to joke about.

Just pointing out the facts. Sorry, you and others can't deal with it. Lib's always label and divide.

Liberals identify people, which gives them dignity. That's not divisive any more than are the Irish organizations and Swiss organizations and German and Norwegian and Korean and Chinese and others that celebrate their own group distinctiveness.

OTOH, you're the one doing labeling: you lump together diverse groups as "left", when if you knew what the word meant you would never do.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

The faux outrage from someone who wished a US Senator a slow, painful death is quite delicious. Clean up your own house first before you complain about other people's behavior. Disagree with whatever policies any politician may embrace, but never make it personal. Mr. Castillo made it personal about Obama and that's just as wrong as what some here did in regards to McCain. You're every bit as culpable for your words as Castillo. There's no place for that kind of speech by either side.

The faux outrage from someone who wished a US Senator a slow, painful death is quite delicious. Clean up your own house first before you complain about other people's behavior. Disagree with whatever policies any politician may embrace, but never make it personal. Mr. Castillo made it personal about Obama and that's just as wrong as what some here did in regards to McCain. You're every bit as culpable for your words as Castillo. There's no place for that kind of speech by either side.

lol

LOVE it. The one sided view you have is impressive, Jackaroe.

McCain did the same thing to rice that this guy did to Mr Obama, but McShame hid behind his office to do it. Perhaps if you or one of your family members were attacked with lies on the floor of the senate, you would think differently.

McCain's behavior is just one of many reasons that these nutcases are doing this shit, and the sooner we as a people speak out against that dishonest brazen abuse of power aimed at an american ambassador, America will move forward.

The leadership of the tea party and the GOP has brought us these monsters, and WE the PEOPLE have the RIGHT of free speech, last I checked, to keep them in line.

McCain is dishonored, and the sooner he leaves office and is put in a nursing home the better we all are as a nation.

Since you brought up McCain, I thought we ought to put him in his proper perspective, not the alternative GOP reality, where Politicians can attack the servants of the nation, and yet to answer his attack is unamerican.

The GOP still wants to shut people up, by all means necessary, and some of us, the majority of americans, just voted and decided we were going to put a stop to that bullshit.

We're gonna sit down and have ourselves a drink! And after we're done - after *I'm* done, you can run upstairs and take whichever one of them little pills makes you feel the best~Dolores Claiborne

Perhaps you were unaware. One of the duties of Congress is to oversee the executive branch. Susan Rice, is a public servant on the public payroll. She'll answer to Congress when called to do so. That's just how it works. The thug in the White House can huff and puff all he likes with all off the righteous indignation that he can manufacture. It doesn't change the fact that Susan Rice told us there was no premeditation involved in these attacks and that it was all about a video. That wasn't true and she either knew it, which makes her a liar or she didn't which makes her incompetent and unfit. Take your choice.

Well, in truth, the country is too large and with too diverse groups living in it for more parties. Coalitions work well in small countries, but a party that isn't covering the entire nation and doesn't have representation and infrastructure everywhere is simply not qualified to be a part of the government. The two-party system has its (glaring) flaws, but I feel like it provides a more stable government than a multi-party system would in a country such as the US.

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Perhaps you were unaware. One of the duties of Congress is to oversee the executive branch. Susan Rice, is a public servant on the public payroll. She'll answer to Congress when called to do so. That's just how it works. The thug in the White House can huff and puff all he likes with all off the righteous indignation that he can manufacture. It doesn't change the fact that Susan Rice told us there was no premeditation involved in these attacks and that it was all about a video. That wasn't true and she either knew it, which makes her a liar or she didn't which makes her incompetent and unfit. Take your choice.

There is no controversy.

Most of the GOP has accepted that. They only ones I can find who haven't is McGollum, Mrs Flimsie Graham, Limbaug the drug addict fatman, and the GOPpers here.

What a group.

There's a flight waiting for you guys heading to Somalia... I tell you, it's a new world. You guys ought to make a go of it there.

We can call it the nation of McCarthia ... McCarpathia? McCain and McCarthy... two men who will go down in history with Issa for abuse of power and dereliction of duty.

I would't wipe my ass with McCains hands... My shit is cleaner than he is.

We're gonna sit down and have ourselves a drink! And after we're done - after *I'm* done, you can run upstairs and take whichever one of them little pills makes you feel the best~Dolores Claiborne

Perhaps you were unaware. One of the duties of Congress is to oversee the executive branch. Susan Rice, is a public servant on the public payroll. She'll answer to Congress when called to do so. That's just how it works. The thug in the White House can huff and puff all he likes with all off the righteous indignation that he can manufacture. It doesn't change the fact that Susan Rice told us there was no premeditation involved in these attacks and that it was all about a video. That wasn't true and she either knew it, which makes her a liar or she didn't which makes her incompetent and unfit. Take your choice.

Thug: a common criminal, who treats others violently and roughly, often for hire.

What evidence do you have that the President is a thug?

Love the false dichotomy fallacy you run. You assume she can decide whether or not to do what her boss tells her, and know things she may not have been told. Either option in your false dichotomy can be answered by "she was doing her job". She's not supposed to be a reporter revealing things regardless of impact, she's supposed to speak for the United States, and as part of the Executive Branch, she's supposed to do so as the President directs.

One would think that a conservative would understand following orders from the boss.

Last edited by Kulindahr; November 19th, 2012 at 02:24 PM.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Well, in truth, the country is too large and with too diverse groups living in it for more parties. Coalitions work well in small countries, but a party that isn't covering the entire nation and doesn't have representation and infrastructure everywhere is simply not qualified to be a part of the government. The two-party system has its (glaring) flaws, but I feel like it provides a more stable government than a multi-party system would in a country such as the US.

There are at least three other parties which are country wide, so they qualify by your standard here: Libertarian, Green, and Reform. The Constitution party may be nationwide.

I fail to see how the present system is "stable" -- what it does is promote animosity, and swing us back and forth in policy. If those other parties were represented in the House, that would be much harder to do. Oddly, bringing them in would be a very republican thing to do, because it would get more people represented, as well as a very democratic thing to do, since it would get more people involved -- so accomplishing it would be a no-brainer, and the lack of that achievement tells us that above being republicans and democrats, our politicians believe in ego and power.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Haha, I am a control freak when it comes to who is in my ass, yeah. I'm anal that way (hur hur hur).

Especially considering I'm way more of a pitcher to begin with

?

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

There are at least three other parties which are country wide, so they qualify by your standard here: Libertarian, Green, and Reform. The Constitution party may be nationwide.

I fail to see how the present system is "stable" -- what it does is promote animosity, and swing us back and forth in policy. If those other parties were represented in the House, that would be much harder to do. Oddly, bringing them in would be a very republican thing to do, because it would get more people represented, as well as a very democratic thing to do, since it would get more people involved -- so accomplishing it would be a no-brainer, and the lack of that achievement tells us that above being republicans and democrats, our politicians believe in ego and power.

When I say nationwide, I mean the resources from the ground up to the top that D and R have. If any other party had those resources, they would be a major player instead of a footnote. Furthermore, the libertarian party has any popularity only because it has never been anywhere near actual governance

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

?

Are we seriously gonna have an "Eastern European explains baseball to an American" moment here?

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

When I say nationwide, I mean the resources from the ground up to the top that D and R have. If any other party had those resources, they would be a major player instead of a footnote. Furthermore, the libertarian party has any popularity only because it has never been anywhere near actual governance

They don't have that kind of resources because of the myth of a two-party system that is enforced by the system built by the one actual party, the "Keep Us in Power" party. Open the House to proportional representation within state delegations, and you'd see a rapid change in that.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

The whole system is broken, both sides of these two parties. If people would figure out what all the other other parties are about, (or that there ARE even other parties) I think we would be better off.

Look at the divisiveness and hate right here, demonstrated by both sides strongly Dem and strongly Rep, in this forum post. The REAL problem is being overlooked and sidelined.

It's about race or party or I'm right and YOU are wrong. PERIOD. Nothing open to discussion. On the other side, let me throw this in as example -- No mention of the black dude in Birmingham, Al. who threatened to kill Obama on Twitter, more than once, even after being warned by the FBI, etc. Maybe his was more a test of freedom of speech than an actual wantonness to murder the current sitting US president, but a threat is a threat regardless and the powers that be took it as such after not one, but two warnings, that this guy Jarvis Britton, was a threat to the president and showed intent to attempt to take his life. --- but yet how many people have even heard of that story? Hardly none. I have to ask, is it because he's a black dude? Probably so. If he'd been white, would his story have been all over the media front pages like this guy Castillo? Probably so. But therein lies the problem - it's lost as to WHY his name or the other guy's name was mentioned - that they threatened the president because everybody has to take a side. In this case, the issue is race. That's NOT what it's all about. http://www.cbs42.com/content/localne...cSUUlacBw.cspx

All this division and rolling through politics with blinders on and only allowing ones self to see what one wants - is FUCKED UP.

So right now I say the whole system needs to be scrapped and started over when this is all you have going on, back and forth, over and over and over. Just bullshit bickering and trying to one up the other and having to have the last word in everything, every time.

Instead, we need to agree to disagree or even just agree on something, anything, and then work on putting the petty crap aside and come together as a people and work toward a common goal: the good of this country and the people in it. THIS is what we need to be doing.

There are truly viable parties with real ideas that would take the emphasis off the partisan BULLSHIT that seem to be the ONLY thing the Democratic and Republican parties can exhibit. We need to get rid of the Army vs. Navy, the Auburn vs. Alabama, the Us vs Them mentality that only encourages hatred and dislike and causes people to go vote blindly for people they really know nothing about. And then causes people to threaten to kill candidates or winners of an election, because they don't side with that "party". And yes, there were multiple threats made on the life of Romney if he were to win. There were many threats and effigies made of George Bush, etc. It's not just about the side YOU are on that causes a story to matter - it's about representing both side for what they are and the genuine HATRED that is in the minds and hearts of SO many. On ALL sides. So let's play it equally. No favorites.

Get rid of the dems and reps, get rid of the electoral college, let the people THINK for once and let the people decide. There has to be a change. Or else we're going to end up in real trouble one day, and looking back and asking ourselves "Where did we go wrong?"

^ Getting rid of the electoral college would be a move against everything this country stands for. It would make two-thirds of the states into the de facto property of the others. If it was done, and people started a rebellion because of it, I would join, because that would be the side of freedom and liberty.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

They don't have that kind of resources because of the myth of a two-party system that is enforced by the system built by the one actual party, the "Keep Us in Power" party. Open the House to proportional representation within state delegations, and you'd see a rapid change in that.

They may not have the resources but the media has an outrageous amount of control over the election which is astounding. You could very easily have a 3rd candidate at the debates but there isn't. They should give the debate power back to the league of women voters and not the media.

They may not have the resources but the media has an outrageous amount of control over the election which is astounding. You could very easily have a 3rd candidate at the debates but there isn't. They should give the debate power back to the league of women voters and not the media.

Media? The presidential campaign debates are controlled by the Two-Faced Whore that looks to the world like "D" and "R".

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Almost... If the rule went that the two electoral votes go with the overall winner but the remainder are split according to pop vote then it would open up the nation for the two parties to become pertinent in fifty states instead of eight. Yet you would still end up with a decisive winner based off electoral college math.

You would see republicans trying to earn that portion of California and New York that is red but is silent every election because of the current system.

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

I disagree, and so do a majority of others. Going with a popular vote would better represent the people's will.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of 3,500,000 votes.

The EC we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states.

I disagree, and so do a majority of others. Going with a popular vote would better represent the people's will.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of 3,500,000 votes.

The EC we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states.

Who originally wrote this?

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that only 14 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about 72% of the voters-- voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Voter turnout in the "battleground" states has been 67%, while turnout in the "spectator" states was 61%. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of 3,500,000 votes.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 76 electoral votes — 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

We're gonna sit down and have ourselves a drink! And after we're done - after *I'm* done, you can run upstairs and take whichever one of them little pills makes you feel the best~Dolores Claiborne

BP, is this possible plagiarism? Did he put something from that into his post? Or am I mistaken?

MattClaimer, it's nice and all that ones come in here and beats their chest about how wrong the system is, but please have an alternate suggestion. My suggestion has always been a system of proportional representation with greater numbers of political parties. This could balance any issue with eliminating the electoral college. A nation like Germany is a federal system much like the United States but its political system is centered more around the political parties.

So no. I don't agree with going with the popular vote. But I also don't agree with how the electoral college is set up.

How does Germany's system work? It's known for its efficiency, despite there being more than two political parties. So the idea that having more than two political parties would hinder efficiency is a wrong one. Not every multiparty system is like that in Italy.

And looking at America's political process, bills take a lot longer than they do in Germany. So the two party system isn't helping efficiency when both parties are at each others throats. A party like the Green Party would certainly be able to gain a stronger foothold (like it has in Germany obtaining almost 11% of the seats in the Bundestag in the last federal election in 2009).

Every system has its pros and cons... but this one even with its coalition process seems to work quite well and effectively. Not one party controls the entire government. Some argue it gives too much power to political parties... and others may argue it centers too much power on population centers... but I argue it's the best system out there.

Also before one comes at me about the popular vote, most western countries don't even go by that. They use proportional representation which is something different.

I never claimed that I penned anything. I included info from a piece that was sent to me in email by someone else on this same subject. Have no idea where he got it from originally. I didn't comment to offer alternate suggestions - I commented to state an example of how and why the system is screwed up and that it needs to be fixed - I don't know exactly what that fix would be, but something that better represents what the people want and not what select groups want, groups who can be bought, influenced, charmed, etc. and groups who throw enough money at the right parties and connections. Groups who threaten extortion, blackmail, calling the race card, etc. The current corrupt system needs to be flushed, it is too easily manipulated and controlled.

And if you'll notice what I said originally - that we need to realize there ARE OTHER PARTIES that should be recognized. More parties than just the two current corrupted ones, dems and reps.

Almost... If the rule went that the two electoral votes go with the overall winner but the remainder are split according to pop vote then it would open up the nation for the two parties to become pertinent in fifty states instead of eight. Yet you would still end up with a decisive winner based off electoral college math.

You would see republicans trying to earn that portion of California and New York that is red but is silent every election because of the current system.

Fifty? No, not when a dozen states out there still have fewer combined votes than on of the big ones. It might make thirty of them important, though.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

I never claimed that I penned anything. I included info from a piece that was sent to me in email by someone else on this same subject. Have no idea where he got it from originally. I didn't comment to offer alternate suggestions - I commented to state an example of how and why the system is screwed up and that it needs to be fixed - I don't know exactly what that fix would be, but something that better represents what the people want and not what select groups want, groups who can be bought, influenced, charmed, etc. and groups who throw enough money at the right parties and connections. Groups who threaten extortion, blackmail, calling the race card, etc. The current corrupt system needs to be flushed, it is too easily manipulated and controlled.

And if you'll notice what I said originally - that we need to realize there ARE OTHER PARTIES that should be recognized. More parties than just the two current corrupted ones, dems and reps.

Your point of view is valid but the other two are correct in that citing soruces is a requirement if you are to post others works.... that's all they need have said.

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

I disagree, and so do a majority of others. Going with a popular vote would better represent the people's will.

A presidential election is not supposed to "represent the people's will". That would be a perversion of the system of checks and balances.

Originally Posted by MattClaimer

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

LOL

No. If it was by popular vote, candidates would only go to where there are lots of votes. Since the dozen least populous states have fewer people than the New York metropolitan area, no candidate would ever go to any of them. We'd end up with what Oregon has new: the only people represented in the government are those in the cities.

Originally Posted by MattClaimer

The EC we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

Care to point me to the amendment that changed the Electoral College?

In the spirit of checks and balances the Framers wanted, the reform the EC needs is to hand every state another electoral vote, maybe two.

Originally Posted by MattClaimer

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states.

You're not going to get rid of the EC because the less populous states don't want to become slaves to the desires of the more populous. That's why the system we have was put in place: it's a check on the power of the populous states, balancing it with a bit of extra power awarded to the small.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

I never claimed that I penned anything. I included info from a piece that was sent to me in email by someone else on this same subject. Have no idea where he got it from originally. I didn't comment to offer alternate suggestions - I commented to state an example of how and why the system is screwed up and that it needs to be fixed - I don't know exactly what that fix would be, but something that better represents what the people want and not what select groups want, groups who can be bought, influenced, charmed, etc. and groups who throw enough money at the right parties and connections. Groups who threaten extortion, blackmail, calling the race card, etc. The current corrupt system needs to be flushed, it is too easily manipulated and controlled.

And if you'll notice what I said originally - that we need to realize there ARE OTHER PARTIES that should be recognized. More parties than just the two current corrupted ones, dems and reps.

Any time it's not your own words, you're expected to tell us so. If it came in an e-mail from a friend, preface it that way; preferably, put it in a quote box.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Fifty? No, not when a dozen states out there still have fewer combined votes than on of the big ones. It might make thirty of them important, though.

Perhaps but it would make a helluva a lot more viable than are considered viable currently... plus after the math was worked out and areas of the country staked out as safe or movable then the swing electoral vote or two could come from any state.... why? Because all states have more than the two allotted based on each member of the house and senate equally a vote.

The difficulty comes in how to proportion 44.9% versus 44..7% of the vote. SO in a small state with three votes and since both round down... how then do you break the tie... it would end in innumerable arguments... and it is also unlikely all states would go for it at once and depending on the turns it would be unbalanced for one party causing some states to shift back to winner take all situations...

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.